PRESS RELEASE: GAMA: Obama’s Budget Disappoints Again
PRESS RELEASE: White House budget contains user fee despite opposition
The President’s FY 2015 budget came out on March 4th. Not all of the aviation world (ALPA, A4A, NATA and others) has yet commented on the proposal. Those, which have issued press releases, are uniformly negative. It was noted in the past that this Administration was not focused on aviation , maybe the people at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue do not hold this industry with high regard.
The most positive response came from AAAE which indicated that the increase proposed for the PFC cap was good, but not good enough (it should be higher). The association’s diplomatic statement includes one strong criticism:
“The President’s proposal also calls for reducing support for the federal Airport Improvement Program from $3.35 billion to $2.9 billion – a move that airport executives believe is unwarranted particularly in light of the failure of Congress to act on the PFC in recent years.”
Essentially AAAE really is not pleased.
AIA, the association which represents military and civil manufacturers and includes NextGen OEMs, used the soft noun “challenges” to characterize its view of how the Obama Administration cut of $65 million in funding in a critical years of development. Its statement reminds that investment in this important infrastructure which will pay dividends. It recognizes that the White House faces an austere budget situation, but that dollars spent here will create paybacks in environmental, safety, global competitiveness among others. AIA also made a late cry for increased funding of the FAA certification mission, noting that the failure to act on these applications equal a global competitive loss.
GAMA, which represents companies that also depend on certification, also found fault with the Administration’s allocation of the needed resources. Pete Bunce was quoted as saying:
“However, we are extremely disappointed that the President’s budget threatens to throw down obstacles to recovery by seeking to impose a $100 per flight user fee. Fortunately, both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress don’t share the president’s thinking on this issue. Last year, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter to President Obama opposing the idea, and just last week, the bipartisan leaders of the House Aviation Subcommittee and the House GA Caucus asked President Obama not to include the proposal in this year’s budget. In addition, the administration’s decision to increase the depreciation period for general aviation aircraft is also very disheartening. We have always been open to being part of a larger look at depreciation for capital investments, but do not believe the general aviation industry should be singled out. “
“As Congress now begins its consideration of the budget, we look forward to working with the administration and Congress on productive ideas to help create more highly paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs and keep our economy growing.”
Clearly, GAMA believes that the war can be won on the Hill.
AOPA and NBAA focused on the user fee of $100. Their statements again cite strong opposition, previously articulated, by the Hill to such a tax.
In summary, these leading aviation organizations and perhaps more find little good in the President’s proposal for spending in FY 2015. The more telling issue is why does the White House point its aviation policies toward negative options? This uniform set of decisions which do not meet aviation needs seem to suggest that the associations must unify to alter this Obama predisposition .